Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  September 27, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
weapons of mass destruction, reduction of poverty, ignorance, disease, war and conflict, fighting terrorism and organized crime, the protection of the environment, achieving sustainable development, a respect for human rights, and mainly the rights of women, and ensuring the rule of law, fighting against hatred and intolerance. mr. president, libya emphasizes its affiliation to africa, the importance of shipping policies with africa and the world, once which were based in the past on extortion. we want them to be a relation based on a firm interest for the interests of all the people. the new libya dissociates itself from the republic of past and extends a hand in freedom and
5:01 pm
friendship to initiate new relations, built on mutual respect and fruitful cooperation. in conclusion, excellencies, mr. president, let me wish this session full success in solving the issues on our agenda. i express the hope that the spirit of solidarity and cooperation will prevail in order to create a better world -- one left with security and stability. thank you, and may god's blessings be upon you. [applause] >> on behalf of the general assembly, i wish to tell the president of the dinner -- general national conference of libya -- i wish to thank the president of the general national conference of libya for the statement he just made. >> more speeches from the united nations tonight here on c-span.
5:02 pm
at 8:00 eastern, israeli prime minister benjamin it did not. at 8:30, the president of the palestinian authority, mahmoud. at 9:00, a replay of the speech we just heard. later tonight, from nevada, a republican senate debates his democratic challenger. -- the republican senator debates his democratic challenger. we will bring that to you live. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries, i will initiate something i will call prosperity pacts. working with the private sector, the program will identify the barriers to investment and trade and entrepreneurship in developing nations. in exchange for removing those barriers and opening their markets to u.s. investment and trade, developing markets will receive u.s. assistance packages, focus on developing
5:03 pm
liberty, the rule of law and property rights. >> we believe freedom and self- determination are not unique to one culture. these are not simply american values or western values. they are universal values. even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, i am convinced that ultimately, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world. >> wednesday, october 3, mitt romney and president obama meet in the first presidential debate, moderated by jim lehrer of "the newshour." what can engage with c-span, including our live previous at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the debate at 9:00, and after the debate, your reaction. follow our live coverage on c- span, c-span radio, and c-
5:04 pm
>> defense secretary leon panetta today said it was obvious the killing of four americans at a u.s. consulate in libya was a terrorist attack. he also said more attacks on american soldiers by afghan soldiers are likely. the remarks came this afternoon with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. >> since the general dempsey just returned from the war front, we thought it would be worth making some comments on afghanistan -- since the general did see just returned from the war front -- since general dempsey just returned from the war front. i will invite general dempsey to share his comments as well. last week, we completed the drawdown of 33,000 surge forces that the president ordered to afghanistan in december 2009. as i said in announcing this
5:05 pm
milestone last week, it is clear that the surge allowed us to turn a very important corner in 2011. it accomplished the primary objectives of reversing the taliban's momentum on the battlefield and dramatically increased the size and capability of the afghan national security forces. to fully understand the impact of the surge, i think it is a good thing to remind ourselves where things stood in mid-2009. at that time, the momentum was clearly on the side of the taliban. the insurgency was steadily retaking key parts of afghanistan. any time that the -- that our forces would clear an area and then leave, it was immediately taken back by the taliban.
5:06 pm
there were no areas that were transitioned, mainly because the afghan national security forces were not capable to provide security on their own or counter the taliban. the result was that afghanistan faced the real prospect that the taliban would take over large parts of the country, which ultimately would have strengthened al qaeda's hand and provided it again with a safe haven from which to plan attacks on our homeland. in short, in mid-2009, i think there was a real risk that the mission in afghanistan might very well fail. thanks to the efforts of u.s. and afghan forces and our
5:07 pm
partners, i think the situation today is considerably different and improved. the taliban's gains on the battlefield have been reversed. they have been unable to regain any of the territory they have lost. violence levels in populated areas have decreased significantly. al qaeda has been denied safe haven, and its leadership has been decimated. afghan security forces have become more capable and expanded dramatically, growing from roughly 150,000 in november 2008 to more than 330,000 today, with the goal of going to 352,000 very soon. most notably, we have begun the transition to afghan security and responsibility. we have moved decisively toward afghanistan that can secure and govern itself, and that is the
5:08 pm
fundamental mission that we have sought to accomplish. with the announcement of the third traunch of transition earlier this year, more than 75% of the afghan population lives in areas that are undergoing the transition process. under the leadership of general allan, nato agreed in chicago to a plan that he designed that has been put in place, and we remain very much on track with that plan -- under the leadership of general allen. i think there is strong international support in order to accomplish that effort. having said all of that, i also want to make clear that even as we recognize these many positive trends, that we cannot and will not ignore the significant challenges that remain. the enemy we are dealing with,
5:09 pm
as we have said before, is adapted and resilient andada -- is adaptive and resilient. their focus has shifted in order to undermine the new sense of security felt by ordinary afghans. there has also been a very troubling rise, as we all know, in insider attacks. the purpose of those insider attacks has been to target the very trust that we need between isaf and afghan forces. that trust is critical to completing this transition. i expect that there will be more of these high-profile at tax and -- high-profile attacks and that the enemy will do whatever they can to try to break our will using this kind of tactic. that will not happen. in response to these attacks throughout the past year,
5:10 pm
general allen has taken steps along with afghan leaders, the afghan army, and isaf to protect our forces and the afghan people and to ensure that our strategy remains on track. most recently, during the heightened tension over the inflammatory video over the it -- on the internet, this included making temporary adjustments on partnered operations between isaf and afghan forces, taking place below the battalion level. i can now report to you that most isaf operations have returned to their normal levels -- normal -- most isaf operations have returned to normal operations. i emphasize we remain fully committed to our strategy of transition to afghan security control. the ansf remains, as general
5:11 pm
allen has called it, the defeat mechanism of the insurgency. as the president has made clear, we have an enduring commitment to and afghanistan that can secure and govern itself and that is never again a safe haven from which terrorists can attack us. our men and women in uniform, our fighting forces, isaf, and afghanistan fighting forces, i think, have sent a strong message to the taliban that time is not on their side. as i said before -- this is a war, and it is a war that will continue to demand perseverance on the part of the american people, on the part of the afghan people, and on the part of the international community.
5:12 pm
as we look at the challenges that remain for us to overcome in the coming months, i think we can take heart in how much our forces have accomplished over these past three years. i can tell you, based on my firsthand observations from going to the war front -- and i think general dempsey can say the same -- that our troops are justly proud of what they have accomplished, and we certainly are proud of them. because of their continued sacrifices and with the continued dedication and commitment of the american people, i believe that we can prevail in this war. general dempsey. >> thanks, mr. secretary. i actually returned from afghanistan just yesterday. while there, i visited our troops in kandahar and helmand
5:13 pm
province. i walked the ground where the enemy last week broke through our perimeter, where two marines fell while racing to the sound of guns, and where i was reminded once again that our servicemen and women are courageous to the court. i met with coalition and afghan leaders, and i will tell you this -- afghan forces are not only gaining capability, but they are also importantly gaining confidence. they are fighters. with our continued assistance, we see them getting stronger, while the taliban gets weaker. i will also tell you that our afghan partners are working with us to shut down the threat of insider attack. as one afghan army commander told me, insider attacks are an affront to their honor, at odds with their culture and their faith. as for us, we are adapting to changes in that threat as well. that is what professional military's do, and we are doing it in a way that ensures we
5:14 pm
continue to be able to partner -- that is what professional militaries do. the taliban is trying to split us apart, but it will not work. they are working to weaken the coalition, and that will not work, either. i met with my fellow nato chiefs of defense week before last. general allen's update to the group was met with one thing -- result. in together, out together is more than just a motto. it is an oat. >> -- an oath. >> since you just got back, you may be best able to answer this question. secretary said most units are backed through partnering. pride is, 90% of all missions were partnered. what percentage of the missions are partnered now? how much did it drop off? -- prior to this, 90% of all
5:15 pm
missions were partnered. you said that about a week and a half ago, something had to change. what specifically, if anything, has changed? what other changes do you need to see? will this approval process have to continue indefinitely, even as more partnering ramps up? >> first of all, john allen's order did not at that level restrict anything. it told subordinate commanders to assess their own situation in their own part of afghanistan, and they did that. i would suggest that what they did as part of that was buy themselves some time in order to determine whether we had to make any internal changes. that could be something as simple as reinforcing standards and discipline to adding
5:16 pm
potentially to the guardian angel program, and whenever it happens to be. that was all done, it seems to me, at the right level. it was not done at this level. it was done down where the group meets the ground -- where the boot meets the ground. the other thing that had to change was we needed buy-in from our afghan partners to make sure they were taking this as seriously as we did. i can tell you without hesitation they are taking this as seriously as we are and taking active measures to help us -- and then -- defeat this threat -- to help us and them defeat this threat. i came back with a renewed sense that we can lower the risk of the insider threat. >> the percentages? the numbers? >> i do not have them committed
5:17 pm
to memory. if as you say a week ago we were reporting 90%, i am quite confident we are back to that level. >> while we have both of you here, i wonder if you could square for us your different reactions to insider attacks. you called it a last-gasp effort of the taliban, and you called it a very serious threat to the campaign. which is it? >> a series last-gasp effort. [laughter] >> i do not think we were speaking past each other. there is a number of ways to describe this threat. it is a very serious threat. i mentioned in my opening remarks that they are trying to split the coalition by having it lose confidence in itself. >> and this is the last gasp. >> as i said, the effort here
5:18 pm
has made it clear that time is not on their side, that we have been able to achieve a great deal of the missions that we are after. we did have a very important corner. violence is down. the afghan army is obviously much better at providing security. so, you know, we are moving in the right direction, moving on the right track. the taliban has had less and less ability to be able to fight back and be able to get back the territories that have been lost, so i think this is part of -- similar to ied's, it is their effort to try to create the kind of high-profile that tax that while they do not gain them anything, basically try to break our will -- the kind of high- profile attacks that do not
5:19 pm
gain them anything but basically try to break our will. >> ied's were not a last gasp. they were just a new tactic. >> this is a new tactic. it indicates that they are unable to get back the territories that they have lost. that is what it reflects. whether or not, you know, it is the end of their bag of tactics to come at us, i think is still an open question. >> [inaudible] your sense of benghazi now, and a couple of things i want to discuss. was there discussion of putting marines at the compound to help secure it? what is your assessment and analysis of al qaeda and
5:20 pm
affiliate's or inspired organizations, their ability to assemble and generate an attack capability of this sort very rapidly? and for the united states to openly have no sense that it needed to provide the security to meet that potential threat. what does it say to you about al qaeda abilities in that region? >> first of all, with regards to benghazi, we responded to a request to provide a fast team to go into tripoli and provide additional security there, and we responded to that. at that point, for all intents and purposes, benghazi had been pretty much unoccupied by any of the diplomatic and other
5:21 pm
security personnel that were there. the main focus then was on tripoli and the embassy in tripoli, and that is what we responded to. with regards to al qaeda and its efforts in that area, i think it is fair to say that al qaeda, you know,ontinues, as i indicated, to try to pursue its efforts in that part of the world. we have been going after them in yen in. we have been going after them in somalia. we have been going after them in north africa. -- we have been going after them in yemen. they continue to be a threat in those areas. again, they continue to operate in different ways as well in other parts of africa. as to specifically whether they were or were not involved regarding the attack in benghazi, i think that remains
5:22 pm
for the investigation to determine. >> but the fact that administration officials are now calling this a terrorist attack. >> it was a terrorist attack. >> why do you say that? why do you come to that conclusion? if it was a successful terrorist attack against a u.s. installation, against the united states, what does it say to you about the surprise that al qaeda or one of these groups were able to enact against the united states? >> primarily the reason i think it was a terrorist attack was because a group of terrorists conducted that attack on a consulate and against our individuals. what terrorists were involved i think still remains to be determined by the investigation, but it clearly was a group of terrorists who conducted that attack against that facility.
5:23 pm
we, as a country, have ourselves been the target of a terrorist attack, and i think that we have made clear that as a result of that, we are going to continue to go after those that would attack our individuals, and i think that remains the case here as well. we are not going to let people who deliberately attack and kill our people get away with it. >> [inaudible] mr. secretary, when did you come to the conclusion that what had happened in benghazi was a terrorist attack? mr. chairman, did the joint staff provide any warning to the state department that there were increasing security concerns in benghazi? the fbi says it is too dangerous to be in benghazi, which is why none of them are there now. is that because the situation has worsened, or was it always too dangerous? >> as we determine the details
5:24 pm
of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack. that is when i came to that conclusion. as to who was involved, what specific groups were involved, i think the investigation that is ongoing hopefully will determine that. >> about a day after? >> it took a while to get some feedback as to what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a threat intelligence reporting back -- eight to read -- there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups were seeking to coalesce, but there was not anything specific, and certainly not anything specific to the consulate that i am aware of.
5:25 pm
as far as the risks of the fbi reported, you really would have to ask them why they made that determination. >> did you make the state department aware of the intelligence? >> the intelligence that we all get is broadly shared among intelligence agencies and all interagency partners. >> i wanted to go back to afghanistan briefly. is it your personal belief that the taliban is responsible for many or most of the insider attacks at this point? general dempsey, did you order or advise general allen to resume the partnering effort? related to that, given what we have seen from the reports about people in body armor and the temporary stand-down on partnering, is the taliban
5:26 pm
succeeding in driving a wedge between the ansf and isaf? >> as for what percentage of the insider threat is related to infiltration or radicalization, it is really difficult to determine. generally speaking, we lose access to these individuals either because they are killed or day escape -- or they escape. i am is certain percentage of it is -- i am certain -- i am sure a certain percentage of it is. we go to the site to try to make the determination, and based on what we learn, we adapt. i did not go there to order a general all -- order general allen to do anything. i went there to get a sense as to whether our campaign
5:27 pm
objectives were still valid, whether our campaign plan was still on track, and i came back -- again, i have said this publicly. we are committed, resolved, to those objectives as outlined in lisbon and reinforced in chicago, but i think anybody that thinks it will be a straight line from here to there is probably not thinking about it the right way. i have great confidence and trust, as the secretary does, in general allen and those on the ground to make the adjustments necessary to achieve those objectives. >> august 30 in london, you said you did not want to be complacent in a unilateral israeli attack on iran. complice that not only implies an accomplice or partner -- complicit implies an accomplice
5:28 pm
or partner. >> i think we have all question -- many of us have questioned whether the timing is right. i think the path we are on to convince iran to forgo its desire for a nuclear weapon -- you have heard us say we are not even sure they have made that decision. the context is important because i was asked a question about why i was not doing more to protect our forces in the gulf in the event that israel made a decision, and my answer really was intended to portray that i do not feel like i have any place in trying to affect the sovereign decisions of any nation, including our closest partners. there was a context gap there. >> last week, the deputy program manager of the joint strike fighters, the largest program in pentagon history, said the relationship with lockheed, the
5:29 pm
number one contractor, was the worst he had ever seen. $75 billion has been spent in this program to date. did you agree with that assessment? how could that happen, that relations are so bad with the number one contractor on the number one program in the pentagon's inventory? >> i do not know that i would portray it in those terms. these are difficult negotiations, as they always are, when you are dealing with, you know, the amount of money and complexity that is involved with the joint strike fighter. so there are tough negotiations going on, but i am confident that both parties, as we know from just the nature of these kinds of negotiations, that both parties will ultimately reach a solution. i am not convinced that this has reached a point where we have dead-ended in terms of our
5:30 pm
ability to find a way out. i think both of us understand that the joint strike fighter is important -- to our security and to the companies that are involved here -- and i think ultimately, it will be resolved. >> you do not agree with the notion as expressed by the deputy program manager that relations with the company, the program office, and stakeholders is the worst he has ever seen? you do not share that? >> i do not share that because i do not know the history of what has gone on in the past, but at least from what i know at this point, my view is these are very tough negotiations, but they are not a reflect -- a reflection that either side has given in or things that the other side is in a more difficult state at all. we will get through this. s --wo quick clarification i
5:31 pm
you said earlier ones partnered operations resume, but i thought the chairman said they had all resumed -- you said earlier ones partnered operations resume, but i thought the chairman said they had all resumed -- you said resumedonce -- you said earlier once partnered operations resume, but i thought the chairman said they had all resumed. >> as i travel to visit leaders at every level, they all have made adjustments, and as they have made the adjustments, they have restored, i guess, the level of engagement. the reason it is hard to pin down at any given time is the campaign is always adapting. as you know, we have a system where we were partnering. then we moved to security force
5:32 pm
assistance teams, but they were built on the back of security structures. now, as i sit here, we are throwing forces into a theater that are built purposefully for security force assistance -- into a theater -- into theater that are built purposefully for security force assistance. as i left afghanistan, the leaders i spoke to had resumed operations as they had been previously organized, so it was my assessment coming back at the command had -- that the command had restored to its previous norm, but it is changing all the time. as units no longer need security forces, they are moved elsewhere. it is a matter of gauging progress, capability, and investments. >> they are back to normal? >> as far as i know, sitting here in washington.
5:33 pm
>> on the question of -- were they involved with al qaeda or not -- i think that is a matter for investigation to determine. as we all know, there's a lot of different forms of terrorism in that part of the world. there's a lot of terrorism that is home-grown, and i think it is really important, before we come to any firm conclusions, to give the investigators the opportunity to determine exactly who was involved in the attack that took place. >> [inaudible] ask the international community for military intervention in syria. i would like to know if you agree. mr. chairman, could you tell us what your meeting with staff was about?
5:34 pm
do you feel the saudis are concerned about the implications of the syrian conflict? >> you know, i think it is pretty clear that at this point, the most effective thing that the international community can do is to continue to bring both diplomatic and economic pressure on assad to step down. we are addressing obviously a number of the concerns there. we are doing what we can with regards to the humanitarian crisis and trying to provide for and meet the humanitarian needs that are increasing. we continue to monitor the cbw sites, which concern us, and
5:35 pm
others in the region to make sure they continue to be secure , and we are providing assistance to the opposition, trying to make sure that they are getting the kind of assistance that can help them in their cause. i think those are the most effective ways to deal with that. direct intervention by the united states -- i think both general dempsey and i have said would be a serious mistake for the united states to embark on that kind of intervention on our own. if the international community decides that is a step the international community would like to move forward, then, obviously, we would be part of that, but absent that kind of broad support, i think for the united states to do it would be a mistake. >> i did visit my counterparts
5:36 pm
from saudi arabia. we did walk around the region, and their concern with syria was really based on what they assess as iranian influence, which they assess also to be a factor to their south in yemen. the majority of our time was spent speaking about how we could continue to partner with them and help build their capability, in particular in air defense and in the maritime domain. >> you said you went to afghanistan to see if campaign objectives were still valid. it implies a level of doubt about the campaign objectives that you kept the details of the trip under wraps until you came back. >> i was afraid you all would ask to come with me.
5:37 pm
[laughter] the trick was i had originally planned to go to pakistan -- the truth was i had originally planned to go to pakistan, but because of some of the details of that film, he and i discuss postponing it, mostly so i could give him time to deal with the issues he was dealing with internally. i decided to extend my trip to afghanistan. i truly have no doubts about our campaign objectives and our ability to achieve them, particularly those i am responsible for, which are the military objectives >> greater than [inaudible] >> -- the military objectives. >> [inauble] >> remember, i was supposed to go to pakistan first, and i wanted that to be a very private trip. i only changed it at the end. >> [inaudible] as he builds the budget for next
5:38 pm
year, you are going back to the strategy released in january, making adjustments as needed, and i was curious i give -- curious if you could outline some of those changes you are looking at for next year. >> the key for us has been the strategy that we put in place. we went through a process of developing a new defense strategy, not only for the present but for the future. it has some key elements we think are important, and we wanted to adhere to those. in fashioning the budget that we have to do now, obviously, based on some of the changes that were made on some of the proposals we have made -- obviously, that is still not a completed process, so we do not know ultimately what will happen. we have kind of at least looked at that and asked if there are
5:39 pm
modifications we have to make, but there are no modifications to the basic strategy that we have developed. every one of those elements still remains a cornerstone for our foundation for our strategy for the future, and the investments we make in budget reflect that. if there are changes, there will be changes in the margin. >> [inaudible] mr. chairman, on your visit to afghanistan, and mr. secretary, on china. you said that you wanted to visit pakistan. my question is -- on your visit to afghanistan, did pakistani officials say that without pakistan's cooperation or hell, there cannot be longstanding peace in afghanistan? do you believe that terrorists across the border are now under
5:40 pm
control of the pakistani , or are you sure now that you can do without pakistan's cooperation? >> i have always believed the outcome in afghanistan would clearly have to include some resolution of the groups that operate out of western pakistan. my purpose in going to visit was to get insights in that regard. >> mr. secretary, my question for you is -- you just came back from china. there is tension in the south china sea and the indian ocean. you went to india.
5:41 pm
my question is that the u.s. and india i now working on one of the biggest arms deals between u.s. and india -- the u.s. and india are now working on one of the biggest arms deals between u.s. and india. what are you telling the chinese about this deal? >> we did not discuss that specific assistance that we are working on with india, but in general, i think in the discussions i had with the chinese, it was that the purpose of our effort to be balanced to the pacific is aimed at the prosperity and security of the pacific region -- our effort to rebalance to the pacific. the key to that strategy is a strong, bilateral relationship between the u.s. and china because we share concerns in the pacific. we share concerns with regard to
5:42 pm
terrorism, with regard to issues like nuclear proliferation, with regards to humanitarian assistance, maritime rights, etc., and it is important for us to work to develop the capabilities of countries in that region so that they can help secure themselves. if i ever was asked about the situation in india, my answer would be the same as what we do with regards to other countries in the region -- we try to help develop their capabilities so they can help provide security for that region. >> mr. secretary, quickly -- >> don't filibuster. >> mr. secretary, congress has left town without making deals to avoid sequestration. last week, it was said that some sort of short-term deal might be beneficial. do you agree with that? >> i will take whatever the hell
5:43 pm
deal they can make. the problem now is they have left town, and all of this has now been put off into the lame- duck session. so it is extremely important that when they returned after the election that they take steps to deal, you know, not just with this issue but with the larger fiscal cliffs that this country is facing. we cannot maintain a strong defense for this country if sequester is allowed to happen, number one, but very frankly, just the shadow of a sequester being out there continuing is something that basically creates a problem for us as we try to plan for the future.
5:44 pm
what exactly are we going to be facing? how are we going to deal with it? we need stability. you want strong national defense for this country? i need to have stability. that is what i am asking congress to do -- get me stability with regards to the funding for the defense department for the future. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the united nations general assembly is meeting this week in new york. tonight on c-span, some of the speeches from today. at 8:00 eastern, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. endicott 30, the president of the palestine authoritythemahmoud abbas -- and at 8:30, the president of the palestine authority, mahmoud abbas.
5:45 pm
>> september 11, 2001, was a day that changed my life forever. it changed america is like. i am going to go through a power point presentation, which will outline the historical account of the attack as things transpire that day. it gets pretty intense. a lot of things happen very quickly. i will do my best not to ramble on and go to fast, but i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room, and you will get a real sense of what it was like to be at the top of the food chain, the national command authority, as a nation of 300 million americans was attacked by 19 al qaeda terrorists. >> more from lieutenant colonel robert darling, "inside the president's bunker." >> the new america foundation
5:46 pm
today hosted a discussion on child care. while the issue has not been prominent -- and why the issue has not been prominent in the presidential campaign. this runs 90 minutes. >> all righty, good afternoon and welcome to the new america foundation. on behalf of all of us here at new america, we delve into the 2012 election this afternoon and welcome you to this event on what the presidential candidates should be saying about child care and early learning. thank you all for joining us today, and thank you to those who are watching on the internet and watching live on c-span. i want to begin by saying thank- you to the casey foundation for its leadership on the issues we will be discussing today and support for this and other events -- i want to begin by saying thank you. we believe attention to and investments in quality child
5:47 pm
care and early learning can make a difference for the social mobility of american families. you will be hearing about some of those advantages this afternoon. lisa and i have posted a number of events previously on child care and early learning, but today, we will talk about what the candidates and parties should be discussing because next wednesday night, presidential debates begin. thus far in our discussions with the campaigns and as we have looked at the party platforms, we have seen less attention paid to child care and early learning than we might have expected, both in the presidential and also the congressional races. given the research that points to the impact of attention to the earliest years of life and given the advantages of child care in helping low-income workers, we might have expected, for example, democrats to focus on child care after obama had been criticized for allowing flexibility for states and welfare worker requirements. given the gender gap and the
5:48 pm
child care many working mothers have been concerned about for some time, we might have expected attention to be paid by republicans. there has been insufficient attention paid by the campaigns in the opinions of many. a singular focus on employment in the deficit had taken the wind out of the sales of issues
5:49 pm
such as these, and, yes, they are critical and linked to jobs and social
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
>> we have done six licensing studies, and taken a look at laws and regulations to see what states are doing, and what we found is really not ok. the average score for centers in our reports is 87, which i do not want to get into.
5:52 pm
it is about 58%. that would be a failing grade in any classroom in america. we just came out with a report. i do not know if you have seen it. it is called "leaving children to chance." this report can add a couple of months ago and it looked at what is happening in homes. 4 d's. one b's, 4 c's, the 10th state, massachusetts, failed, and they were in the top 10. -- i think iith heard the first remarks say investment in child care and early learning. i do not think it is child care and early learning. i think for parents and many
5:53 pm
children, child care is an early learning program. on average, 11 million kids, about 35 hours a week, so for those lucky enough, 1.3 million children in pre-k a couple hours a day, a couple of hours of we, that is great and makes a huge difference in school readiness. the rest of the children -- as i said, there's 11 million -- there it and top -- they are in child care somewhere. as we look at our licensing system and see how it is stacking up, it is important to ensure that those teachers, one, our -- are safe. second, training. minimum training is one of the
5:54 pm
biggest ways to improve the clock -- the quality of care. that is what guides effective interaction between children and adults. it is approaches to learning. it is safety, like the cpr. health and safety practices, and approaching children with different behavioral issues. all of that leads to school readiness. the fact is, when we are looking at children in kindergarten and the later grades and see that they are not progressing the way that they should, nor the fact that they spent five years in a child care setting where maybe the tv was on all day. or maybe the providers did not have any trading, and they did not have any age-appropriate stimulation activities -- maybe the providers did not have any training. background checks, minimum trading -- minimum training. we also want to see inspections. why? inspections help ensure that when a state does have standards -- we all know the federal law
5:55 pm
does not have any minimum, so there's nothing to check on, but when each state does have a policy of inspecting, that they look to see if the children are safe. the should be done on a regular basis, at least once a year, maybe more often, because otherwise, any standard does not matter. in california, they do inspections once every five years. in montana, three to five years. in pennsylvania, once every six. michigan, once every 10. the law calls for an effective enforcement, but if everybody -- if anybody thinks inspection every five, six, 10 years is effective, i expect a little more than that. we are looking basically to raise the bar. we spent a lot of time working with parents. parents make assumptions. they assume a license means something. they assume there are basic protections for children.
5:56 pm
they assume that somebody is looking out to sea how the program is doing -- looking out to see how the program is doing. but we know the gap between the logical assumption of parents and what is actually happening in state policies is huge. the parents we have been working with throughout the country have stories to tell. i am hoping that it will make the candidates think twice -- what are we doing? i was in alaska two weeks ago. a 19-month-old toddler died on the playground. she was strangled on some playground equipment. when the grandmother came to pick her up, the report was all the staff were running around to find somebody who knew cpr. one thing -- they had to rush to find somebody who knew cpr? why is it not a requirement that every staff person working with children in a child-care center is required to know cpr? i mean, a crisis happens and
5:57 pm
they have to rush around to find somebody? i will tell you, it is because state law requires someone on the premises know cpr. you rush around to find somebody when a bad thing happens? that is not ok. would it have made a difference for that child? i don't really know, but i know we have examples from our parents who had some really tragic things happen, that the status quo is not ok. until we talk about what is really going on out there, it is hard to get the attention of policymakers to see that the status quo is not ok. we really need to fix it. we really need to do something about it. we are really hoping that this reauthorization and bipartisan bill -- which we had a printing press and a magic wand, but unfortunately, we do not. it is a road map to quality, and it starts with safety. that is the bottom line. no child to be in a child care setting -- regardless of income -- i have not even started talking about children on
5:58 pm
subsidy in what they have access to -- but all children regardless of income should be safe, and parents should not have anxiety when they are at work about whether or not their child would be safe. these parents had to learn the hard way through a tragic situation -- hopefully, we can do something to prevent that from happening. i am not exactly sure what else you are looking for, but one is safety. two is maybe if we required some minimum training and start on that road equality, we can do things that make a difference, like technical assistance, follow-up training, to make sure that someone who gets training actually uses that training effectively, either in a home setting or child-care center. we are not quite there yet. we have secure agencies throughout the country. they train about 600,000 providers a year. they also work with a lot of
5:59 pm
providers and technical assistance to make sure that the training sticks and makes a difference, but i think we need more of it. so we are looking to try to see if the cornerstone of quality in a child care setting is the training and education of the workforce, if we can up the bar on that. i think there's a lot that can be done. i think that, as far as quality is concerned -- you have about 28 states with a quality rating system. that is a really good thing. it is tough to be a parent. what questions do you ask? what do you look for? i think every parent wants the warm person who is going to be friendly and nice and you can click with because you want somebody who will love your children, but at the same time, the expectation should be if you are in a business with children,
6:00 pm
there should be other criteria. you should not have a history of violent offenses, so you would be no harm to the child. you should have some minimum training so that what you are doing can nurture the children and, hopefully, put them in a situation better ready to succeed when they start school. unfortunately, as i said, what we have seen from our studies is that is not happening. i want to end with one other thing it is called parents and the high costs of child care. we are not where we should be on the quality and care and the safety of care. where we are right now, it is not affordable. how can it be that there's so much improvement to be done to be where we need to go on this road map? parents are tapped out.
6:01 pm
it is not affordable in many states. in some states it is more than college. how can that be? that is the reality. we will have to look at alternative ways to find child care and early education. parents are tapped out. the quality out there is not what it should be to protect the development of children. how will we deal with that? this is not a party issue. it is to some extent, -- it is not a poverty issue. it is to some extant. if you have more than one child, it is almost impossible. you want a license market to mean something. you do not just one children
6:02 pm
to be safe. -- not just want children to be safe. that should be included. you want the children to succeed. that is our vision of what we would like to see in the reauthorization bill. >> i know we will have a chance to go deeper in question and answer as well. i have asked of children under 6. i appreciate you raising those issues. let's say you will plan the system and it will be your opportunity to work on the reauthorization. what would you put into the bill? i will hold my second question until you finish that one. i am very interested in today versus the 1988-1996 time
6:03 pm
period vs today. there was a campaign work bush 41 talked about child health care in his campaign in a way we have not seen since then, i would argue. in 1996, you had a campaign that was what it was an environment that led to some reauthorization or updates in the law of 1996. things were different. presidential candidates ignored some of these issues. there are relevant and recent examples where conditions were different. am i right? am i reading some of the historical tea leaves in terms of the elections? what do we need to do to return to focus on these issues similar to what we saw in the past?
6:04 pm
>> i am going to try to present a fuller picture of where we are and what parents and providers are facing. david, i really appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf of the national women's's law center. in my very long career, i have always heard that it is not the right time for children and we do not have enough money to do what is right. someone took me to lunch and said, how dare you ask for $2 billion. especially when have a big deficit. i do not think that the lack of resources should be the starting point for our debate on the reauthorization. for low-income children to be in a high-quality early childhood
6:05 pm
settings that will improve the chances for a better life outcomes, that has to be increased investments to support children, parents, early childhood educators, and drug care programs. that is not impossible, -- and child care programs. that is not impossible. child care assistance is a two- fer. trust your assistance by helping families work and go to school can also lead to effect son the aspects of that environment. despite the expanded awareness about the importance of better
6:06 pm
quality for young children, you hear that from our other panelists, there is an important for parents to work. we have still not on the will to ensure that all of our children and their families have the early childhood programs that they need. there are many families who are trying desperately to work. we owe them better. we need to do this for the sake of our nation of's economic success. early childhood does not have an extensive funding stream. the bulk of support comes from parents. we cannot build high-quality system was sick and garments with parents picking up the majority of the costs -- we cannot build high-quality education and systems with parents picking up the majority of the costs. the challenges of winning the
6:07 pm
support necessary to support high quality care and the recognition that new investments are integral to successful the authorizations. there are three reauthorization is that are relevant. discussions around the 1993 operation began in the spring of 1986. we recognized it could be a presidential campaign issue. it resulted -- we took time out. we walked with congress in the reagan administration in the complementary opportunity presented by a debate on welfare. they all agreed that the child care assistance was key to help grow and keep a job. this led to trucker assistance for mothers receiving will care and you're a transitional child- care -- and this led to a child care assistance for mothers
6:08 pm
receiving welfare and a year of transition of child care. then removed the discussions around ccbg. we were able to focus on making women need job for assistance as well. we need to build up the quality of chawed care. the bipartisan bills are introduced with a significant number of co-sponsors included federal standards, because in the end, the standards that govern the funding and the company's resources that need them are the key drivers of quality. however, there were competing voices in politics and helping children succeed and federal and
6:09 pm
state flexibility. they join the first bush administration to argue for flexibility. as a result in order to move forward, the quality was set aside. it was significantly cut back. a compromise on standards for the weaken the final negotiations of the bush administration. it resulted in a provision that states only have to set minimal safety and education standards. funding was also cut back. the bill was enacted after a three-year debate. we were happy. it was interesting and not included in the deficit- reduction bill. -- enough that is was included in that deficit reduction bill.
6:10 pm
this summer at the child-care hearing, it made a big difference for parents and providers. let's turn to 1996. the debate was very basic. congress decided to end that child care entitlement at the same time they're ending welfare as we know it. however, advocates joined by governors and congress and the clinton administration, agreed that funds and a doctor was necessary if low income women were facing increased work requirements -- -- in child care was necessary if low-income women ever facing increased work in garments. it was absolutely clear and in that debate that most of the low income women been expected to work or not going to earn enough to pay for child care. this is still true.
6:11 pm
the battle over quality was eliminated. the governor leading the welfare discussion wanted to completely eliminate minimum standards on the quality set aside. we won bipartisan support to maintain both, but we lost the requirement. there was no meaningful discussion of improvements over those two years. with these new funds, and additional funding later in the clinton administration, states made improvement. they raised wages for providers. they helped children go back to school. some hired new licensing inspectors. than funds began to stagnate. on the one in six children eligible for welfare not received it. it is likely declining. it is likely we will be reaching only 1.5 million children. this is the lowest number of
6:12 pm
children served since 1998. the need for help is not dropping. the coverage of children who need quality care is there. according to a study that was done in 2011, families in 37 states were worse off than in 2010. states are making solomon at choices. they ask parents to contribute more. do they. child-care providers lower rates? -- do the ask dr. providers -- child care providers for lower rates? the number of mothers receiving assistance is reclining -- declining with time limits. many children are leaving in -- living in deep poverty.
6:13 pm
only three states. providers of the federally recommended levels. a member of that to 22 states in 2001. six reports that the pay higher rates for high-quality cases. the reimbursement rates, even at the highest quality level, is before that 70 percent of current market rates. quality rating systems isn't interesting way to help parents understand but higher-quality care. they're not real if parents do not have the money to access high-quality care. if providers to not get the support they need to improve their settings. a families receiving a child care assistance because of low rates might have difficulty finding any job your option in their neighborhoods. dr. centers are shutting their doors in low income communities
6:14 pm
-- child care centers are shutting their doors in low- income communities. i urge presidential candidates to listen to the moms and the providers. in new york city, three-quarters of families on the waiting list reported that this was negatively affecting their children. my child is six months of your old. -- six months old. they find a very challenging to worked. in north carolina, one in four families have lost or quit their jobs while waiting for talked assistance. a minnesota parent without assistance expend the consequences. "i lost that job due to babysitting problems. of a conscientious about minding the child care rations -- a
6:15 pm
arrangements." lower-income mothers live on the edge. they face many challenges. child care assistance is a lifeline. there are countless other stories of mothers who benefit from assistance. if we continue to dismantle our fragile and early talk could system in place, or place new demands on it without new resources, child care and families deserve every authorization that infuses the significant new funds to enable more children to have child care assistance and ensure that they are in high quality settings that awful them -- are for the new learning experiences. we will reform accountability to count on new investments to support needed reforms. the reform should include making the child care assistance more accessible and more logical
6:16 pm
for parents and paying child care providers on time and offering continuing child care settings. they should improve the child care standards that we fund. teachers need to gain the education and skills they need to meet the standards and make sure our children are in safe settings. we have to design these reforms not with one particular type of care in mind. we have to recognize the various types of care that families rely on. many low-income mothers work non-traditional hours and work shift hours. they may have to rely on informal care. we need reforms of work for all families, including these mothers. what is different now is that mothers poured into labor force in the 70 -- 1970's and 1980's. at the time, there was not much
6:17 pm
of a trout care infrastructure to help these mothers. newspapers around the country had front-page stories that kept going on and on about families challenges in finding affordable child care. it was on the nightly newscast. i was on seven newscast on the same night. -- several newscats on the samse same night. both presidential campaign candidates had positioned on top care. mother was helping us out at the time. this year it is challenging. there are many issues that
6:18 pm
affect families on the agenda. it is a different time. but it is not different for the parents and children who need a reliable child care. we cannot find the resources to invest in child care. we need to help our families work under our young children in this economy right now. we can do it. in community after community, you go to meetings and ask mothers, what is on your mind? what are the most important issues? low-income, middle-income, all mothers, they all say that the have the worst time finding child care. it is time that we do something about it. we have been having this debate for a long time. it is time that we do what is right by our kids. thank you. >> thank you. really great. i will ask you to focus on the
6:19 pm
very picture from your experience, if you would. how would you make the case to the country that these issues are important? how would you persuade the country to make investments in early child care? i know you care deeply about it and the folks in the room as well. >> thank you. i get grace and helen. we go thorugh the issues of safety. it is hard to find places where a young child can be safe. that is really the bottom line for that process of taking care of children. the struggle has been going on for many years. i thank you, helen, for the commentary.
6:20 pm
it is very helpful to hear how this debate has been waged in years past with some victories and some losses, but never going as far as it needed to go. for me as a finance, business, economics professional, and as a student of history, this campaign is a lot like the 1960 race between kennedy and nixon. it is like the campaigns in the early 1900's when women's right to vote was a central civil rights issue of the country. it is like the campaigns in the 1840's and 1850's and the election of abraham lincoln when the issue of slavery or freedom
6:21 pm
was a central issue of the country. those local elections before the revolution were similar in the way that they cast the issue as being one in which there is a status of british citizenship and american citizenship. the gap had to be closed. the reason i would bring this up as a candidate -- my platform would be to close at the civil gap. all of us of being in this room being somewhat government professionals know that budgets are not really about money, but civil commitments. budgets are architectures of all of the civil commitment to have made to each other as citizens over many generations. the way in which these commitments a range from national security to air traffic control and to food safety, all
6:22 pm
of these commitments accumulated year after year very slowly and were reaffirmed and reshaped in the appropriations and budget legislation. families, people came to trust these commitments. they shaped their lives and businesses and a family plants around these commitments. now we discover that these budgetary architectures are not sustainable. what is in this is another statement, which is that the architecture of civil commitment is not sustainable. when we say, if there is a budget crisis, we're not saying that there is a lack of money. we are saying that the fabric of the civil commitment that holds a society together is being torn apart. people no longer know how they relate to each other. business people no longer know whether contracts can be enforced.
6:23 pm
courts are operating more slowly. can you get a contract in force? there is a relationship was civil commitments that is a fragment. uncertainty is the rising. trust is falling. investment is falling. economic growth is slowing. unemployment is rising. that is where we are. now in this, it is a civil crisis. there is something in it in which there is a group of individuals who are in essence budget advantaged. there is a category of people who are budget disadvantaged. british citizens and u.s. citizens had to close that gap. jsut as there was a gap between
6:24 pm
men and women in boating, and took 40 years -- voting and it took 40 years to close that gap. just as there was a devotee minority and majority in the access to education and facilities in the 1950's, that gap was closed as well. it took in every single case aggressive action and sometimes violent action to close out those civil gaps. what is the civil back in this story? the gap is between a group of people or families who is a circumstances are paid for by some tos are birder sourden familes and future children.
6:25 pm
i am trying to convince you that it is not an economic problem at all, but a deeper structure -- it is a civil rights problem. it is wrong and probably constitutionally wrong to create deficit structure which results in tax necessity, which reached out and grab the labor of future children without their representation. that is a form of kind of fiscal slavery. you have reached a and grabbed their labor to spend it now -- reached out and grab their labor to spend it now. the budget advantage are those who -- disadvantage are those who might get more than their
6:26 pm
share of benefits. there is one sector of the economy if you are one of the benefiting the sectors of the economy. it might be age and income. these categories of people whose life styles and living standards are supported by these deficits, and they represent the gap. that is why it is difficult for us to close it. it is extremely difficult for us to talk about it. if i were a candidate, i would be talking about the solution to the civil problem i. it is very difficult to solve a civil problem without an economy that is doing better.
6:27 pm
one of the great disappointments to me -- perhaps i can lay it on my own children because i am not sending items to "the huffington post" and elsewhere to explain that when the auto industry ran into trouble, it cut $80 billion in roughly six months. the financial -- it received $80 milliobillion dollars in roughlx months. how big is the sector that produces young adults? can you imagine an economy without young adults? if you want to spend in this economy, the young at sector, you never produces your cars. the auto sector. you know that the financial sector handles your accounts. you know who produces the food
6:28 pm
on your table. that is our cultural sector. autos is 1.5%. finance is 7.5%. how big is the young adult sector? 10.5%. it is without doubt the most important. depending on how you look at it, it is the largest sector in the economy. it is labor-intensive. you spend money in that sector, you will create jobs. you cannot imagine an economy without young adults. you know you have to invest in them. all of you know the returns on investing in kids. i will not go back through that. what i will say is that we as a community in have failed. i take this as a burden on to
6:29 pm
myself. we, as a community, have failed to communicate to politicians that the young sector is as big as it is. we as a sector have not understood our situation as being one in which if you deprive a child early in its life of adequate nutrition, you are denying and diminishing its ability to access its civil rights under the declaration of independence and the constitution. that is as grave a civil-rights violation as any we have talked about in our 200 + years as a country. we have still to do that. we fail to talk about the budget as what it truly is, a civil crisis. how can we change that? how could we change it? for one thing, we need to get much more aggressive.
6:30 pm
we have to put in state capitals in all 50 states to 5000, 10,000, 20,000 people who are involved in raising kids on top of the steps and saying to members of state legislatures, you will vote for kids or you will not be in office. if the next guy does not vote for kids, we will kick him out as well. if you do not think it can be done, think about the basic numbers. every congressional district has about 600,000 people in it. the number of people involved -- the about 1000 child services sites. there are about 50 people associated with every one of those sites. 50,000 people. those 50,000 people can turn every single race for the house of representatives in this country. every single one of them.
6:31 pm
the question is whether this community is prepared to get a militant. is it prepared to do what the founders of the country did in that 17 '70s? are we prepared to do what was done in the 1960's? are we prepared to do with the civil rights act does this were doing -- activiists are doing? >> great. we should take the script and make it available. we're doing that here, and i am very grateful for it. lisa, let's build on that. rob made an eloquent case on our national priorities as they relate to our human capital
6:32 pm
producing and the next generation. as we think about the earliest years, maybe we can link that years of early education to education reform going on in our country and what is right on in the election. both candidates are talking about education as it relates to either affordable college or k-12. they have not mentioned early learning child care as much as they would like. but this into context in some of the things that have talked about. how does early learning fit into k-12 reform and other pieces of education? how should it? >> thank you. following the amazing and deep comment we heard, a lot of my remarks are practical and pragmatic. i want to mention how important it is to be thinking about
6:33 pm
quality and access and investment and understanding this as the heart of the social contract that rob was describing. we have a paper out that the revisions what education and learning opportunities and can look like for young people and for their families. i think that is certainly the place to start and talk about this. how to connect with the presidential candidates should be saying about child care and early learning, and what they are not saying, i was going straight to the obvious connections they could be making in our education debates and how much we need to start connecting these issues to what we are already talking about in
6:34 pm
terms of schools and investing and improving our schools. the first thing i want to make clear is that i think in the wider world, and the public is not as much recognized. child care are early learning programs. children, from the very earliest ages in infancy, are learning and developing social, cognitive, physical, motor skills. all that is happening in the environment that they are in. they should be in environments that are giving them the space to learn how to learn. that is the primary thing that we need to be able to teach our young -- to learn how to learn. we need to understand the
6:35 pm
settings that these children are in, in their homes and in maine child care centers -- and in child care centers. those are learning environment for these kids. once we learn that, we have to break out of the mind set back education starts at age 6. we have to break out of that and recognize the huge opportunity in these earlyn latent settings to develop the next- generation. we need to develop those adults are innovating in jobs that are more than fair wage work. i think both presidential campaigns are missing an opportunity to make this connection to education reform conversations.
6:36 pm
these changes are not going to happen until we look at what is happening to these children in the first six years of life. until we can recognize how far behind we are in investing in those children and in their families and supporting their families -- i do not think we can stop at kindergarten. what is kindergarten looking like? how are we thinking about science research as it relates to the child's first grade year and all the way up through young adulthood. how are we understanding their capacity to learn? are we harnessing the bat? i went to get quickly three examples -- how are we harnessing that?
6:37 pm
i want to give quickly three examples. when i your the debate in the newspaper, they missed it again -- when i read the debate in the newspaper, i am surprised at how they missed it again. when the candidates are talking about middle class families, about the in the mind ai children. who are taking care of the children all the parents are working? are the professionals who are with them, are the able to ride learning opportunities -- provide learning opportunities and engage them to explore the art world and connect with them and a cherished their curiosity and help them build upon that? are the professionals in these settings able to give that to children? do they have the training to do that? are the introducing them to art,
6:38 pm
music, math, storytelling? any other opportunities that can allow them to develop language opportunities and how to express themselves. our elected officials and those who want to be elected officials and need to recognize that many children in this country are not necessarily getting those opportunities. though only way to fix some of our larger educational problems is to be looking at what those kids are experiencing it in the first five or six years. that is the first one. secondly, in the education space, there is a lot of talk around turnaround schools and teacher quality. that is a big part of the education debate in this country. those are issues the obama administration has focused on for fixing failing schools.
6:39 pm
he has a laser focus on effectiveness in teaching and how to improve our teacher work force. the romney campaign has expressed interest in improving the schools through a different avenue by promoting more choice for parents. neither side is recognizing that those reforms if ever put in place will be far less successful if children are not giving the solid foundation in the first place. children growing up in the impoverished conditions have little access to the education that they need in those younger years. those reforms would not go anywhere. we need to get serious about the problem we are talking about today. schools need to teach those basic skills, but we really need our children in environments
6:40 pm
where there are focused on innovative thinking, flexible thinking, deeper knowledge in multiples subject matters. smarter, a far better use of our public funds of thinking of them as education dollars? are investments a country in, wouldn't it be smarter to use those investments to be from loading and make sure that we are setting these children to succeed in the first placed? third, strengthening family life and values. this is an issue that comes up a lot for presidential candidates. i do not doubt at all that the candidates want to make sure that families are supported. we need to have a very serious
6:41 pm
question about how to do that for families who have young kids today. there was a comment made by romney during education and nation segment on nbc this week. children might be best off if one parent stayed at home with them. i think that is a conversation we need to have, but let's get serious about what our early learning environments children need and be flexible so that parents do not feel that it will only be from 9-5. really think about how these early learning environment can work for today working families. those are a few things i would want to put out there on the table.
6:42 pm
we're missing an opportunity to connect a child to education with our country. i would be curious to see if we could maybe stir the pot a little bit and get more of a conversation going. >> thank you. we turned toward our audience. is there any immediate response that you would like to pose to the panelist? we have a little bit of time. we will start with questions. chris will go around with a microphone. please identify yourself and your organization. ask a brief question so we will have time for folks to respond. >> quick question. i agree with everything that was said. i wish we had sort of settled on quality and investment 20 years
6:43 pm
ago. i say that because i think one of the issues that candidates are facing that i would love to hear a response from is -- how do we make investments in child care when you as birth rates are at an all-time low -- u.s. birth time low? at a low timan all- is it more that we have a child care crisis or do we have a care giver crisis? those same families are we talking about to have young kids are also faced with caring for their parents as they become of age. we have a care giving crisis. i would like to hear a response about that. >> helen and grace. that is a very good and
6:44 pm
penetrating question. >> what is interesting is someone said that you need to pass this quickly because someone will be sold. --old. 1 in 4 children under six is poor. we have this growing number of children who are poor. we know their mothers have to work. poverty is extremely damaging. we know that they need high quality, learning opportunities. another issue that i would tell romney about is that we have a huge number of children growing up in single-parent families. especially for african-american families. those single mothers have no choice but to go to work. i think unpaid leave is a critical component in any child
6:45 pm
could strategy. the most we would have is three months probably. we need high-quality, early childhood opportunities. we also need to support care givers of young children. what is ironic is that women are those caregivers. they will need the kind of child-care arrangements that make sense. they might need chalker assistant at night and on the weekends -- childcare assistant at night and on the weekends. we'll need a flexible and complex solution. i still think it is a major need. with the middle class families facing more economic strains with the costs of college and housing, they need assistance. they are not really happy about.
6:46 pm
>> grace > >> -- grace? >> i think you hit it right on the head. we have spent some resources on the elderly. there is social security. we all contribute to social security. elderly people have some minimal protection. when they are in a nursing home or assisted nursing facility, there are minimum protections. background checks for people who work with the elderly. make sure they are treated ok. i would not call that a leader learning area, though some of them to have later learning opportunities in those facilities, but at least there is recognition that the elderly need to be treated in a safe and
6:47 pm
decent environment. for children, there is no minimum. you can see that states are all over the map. children are left to their own devices. parents leave them on their own. when you go to the grocery store, you have a choice -- you have a choice when you pick out vegetables and when you pick out me. you put things in the cart. someone who knows the quality of the meat and fresh vegetables that you might want to buy, some and has set a bar out there. you make sure that there is some and a mom -- minimum so you will not get harmed. we do not have that for child
6:48 pm
care. we need eyes and ears in a field that complicated. we care about school achievement and closing the gap and making progress when children are in school and increasing high school graduation rates, all with an eye to economic growth in the country. we need to look at the early learning settings. this is a crisis. we are at their. pay attention to the dentist in this country -- youngest in theiis country as we do to the oldest. i certainly think it is a great deal more than we spend on the youngest. in 1996, i was pregnant with my
6:49 pm
second child. 16 now. that is three generations of children 0-5 who have gone through this cycle. where are we? we have made some progress, but as far as the road map to equality, we are not there. how many more generations will it take before we make sure that children are in a safe setting and recognize the link between the setting at the start in for five years leads to the ultimate consequence of were the are and how they succeed when they get to school? i would say that i agree that we need to do something about it. >> rob? >> what was said illuminates the
6:50 pm
question completely. one of the gaps that has to be closed is the generational gap, in civil terms. i had the pleasure of being on the board of directors in an organization that should be at this table. i went off the board last year. typical of the things that i do, what the board is recognized as one of the 50 best nonprofits in the country. they have done a lot of work on this issue of older and younger. what they find is that shared sights help improve the educational performance of children. i am 68, or i will be. do i look like i can take care
6:51 pm
of a kid? i am the oldest of the baby boomer generation. the youngest is about 54. the "old" that you're talking about is a relatively small portion of the population. the one they should be focusing on it is between me and age 54. the age of many active business, leaders.l what we want to do is get these people to recognize that they have this obligation because the birth rates are falling, so to speak. if gdp is a function of capital, labor, technology,
6:52 pm
land, and so forth, in that capital component is gdp is dependent upon the production of young adults who are educated and globally competitive and fun to be around, young adults. 18-year olds. if you do not have them, you will not be competitive. drift likend of a drif greece or japan. what is thrilling to me is the challenge of the -- becoming militant over the requirement that baby boomers have a responsibility. even in their own self interest, they should be doing but the constitution says. some of you might notice that i glanced at my cell phone a bit
6:53 pm
earlier. i wanted to make sure i have the wording right. the constitution says that we ordain and establish this constitution to preserve the blessings of liberty. they could have put a period there, but they didn't. we preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity. that is what the constitution says. the constitution of the united states contemplates multiple generations as having civil rights. a society systematically depriving its young of nutrition, health care, strong parenting or caring, housing, and the other things that are necessary to be successful in life, and conception to
6:54 pm
kindergarten. that is when 85% of the brain is formed. to deny it at that age means that you forget about l-12 reform. we have falling high school sat scores. you have underinvested in kids 15 or 20 years ago. if the blessings of liberty and all the pursuit of happiness means, these things require education, particularly in a modern era. to deny a child at the earliest point in his life means that you'll never get on track.
6:55 pm
that is profoundly, aggressively, as genocide ticically a civil rights violat. as a student of history, someone who has traveled all over the world, i see no way for this community to achieve what it seeks to achieve on behalf of children accept by becoming much more militant. >> powerful. let's start taking questions. we have one question over here. we will take heed of questions over here. >> i have so much to say. i will avoid doing that. i would like to highlight that i came wearing i differencehat hat and now i will talk about
6:56 pm
regulatory administration for child care, adult care, and child welfare. i came from california. the department of community care licensing in the state of california overseas all of those presidential child care and adult care settings. they are responsible for inspecting more than 100,000 facilities in their state. they do get around every five years, but they do respond to complaints much more regularly. just to throw that in the mix. i am really happy that you mentioned education nation this week. i think that a new america and others could put the comments made by the candidates in that environment, side by side, we would see a stark contrast in their civil commitments.
6:57 pm
i think that would be a very worthwhile thing to do. finally, up some of the candidates you have not talked about, and i did not expected they would be so much about licensing, but we have a whole set of candidates running for office right now in state legislatures. it is within state legislatures that regulation are enacted and improved -- approved. would like the panelists' connections from the presidential candidates and down the line on state-based rights are connected. >> there are many things going on at the state level that are very good. that is a powerful question. we will go down the line.
6:58 pm
>> thank you. i with their early to alter education organization. you have spoken strongly to the need for reform. one of the things i am struck by is the why -- why our campaigns not talking but investing in kids and making a priority of the crisis in caregiving that we have in this country? greece, your organization puts out excellent reports. -- grace, your organization and put out excellent reports. parents are tapped out for the resources. lisa, you mentioned of k-12 world. that is also a place where resources are also restrained. is there a reason why campaigns are not picking this up as it is related to the resource issue
6:59 pm
and the need for prioritize ation? >> very interesting. we will keep on going down the line. >> my answer is similar for both. i think a big part of the why has to do with the money question and where the resources are going to come from to make this possible and really invest in young kids and families with young kids. there is a chill over having any conversation about innovation over new initiatives or even consolidating programs in a way that leads to better outcomes,
7:00 pm
but would still require some -- those kinds of conversations are dampened by the larger cloud that is hanging over everything right now when it comes to trying to figure out if there is going to be any more government revenue to use to do this. what we are the debt question, because of the election, then november 7, it will start back up. but my worry is that if we are not having these conversations now, that we will not be prepared for when they become important in the near future. i was struck by what was said earlier.
7:01 pm
in the past, there have been conversations about trouble with the deficit, and yet there was the ability to think about it and children. i am now grappling with that. we are in a place where we have tried to get them to think about it in a broader way, because we are seeing a shrinking pie. that is a big problem to put out there. i think that at the state level, there are -- we are in a situation where, because of the learning challenge grants coming from the obama administration and some states to on their own have really innovative and dynamic leaders who are putting these issues to the forefront -- at least some states are moving fairly quickly in a shrinking environment to be focusing on quality and been about more children getting --
7:02 pm
disadvantaged children having access. setting up a stage so the children will have access. we have a have not situation depending on what the state -- what state the job has been born in, what kind of community, down to the zip code issue they talked about some much. educational opportunities depend on zip code. we are in the same place when it comes to young children, opportunities for their families, opportunities for early learning environment. there is more to say on the state front. i would encourage you to look at a previous event that david and i held, that is online, the video is archived. i will give time over to some other folks. >> we will go to grace.
7:03 pm
>> some great questions. i think everyone in the room should think about how we can change this. number one, eric, to your point, why are they not talking about it? because they do not have to. they can get away with it. nobody is calling them. we are not standing up and saying, fixed out care, do something about it. we see a connection. to your point, do something and will find people who do. until we find people and stand up in an articulate and make that point -- you cannot do it at one rally. it is every day. unless there is a civil commitment for every day to stand up and raise his ability on this issue, then they can get away with it because they can. second, i think this is to your
7:04 pm
point. why is nothing being done? congress is the most polarized congress in years. i think there has to be a message from voters who sent them there to review policy, make sure what is happening is effective, that we are headed in the right direction, to reach common ground when necessary, and that compromise is not a dirty word. as long as congress is allowed to be polarized, taking a political positions rather than good public policy decisions to promote families and assist children and make connections with the rest of us do, then you get what you get. i hope the next congress will look at the finding common ground and doing right by families with children. the american public says, enough of polarization. we are sick with -- of it. keep the political press release, give it to somebody who wants it. not us. we are done with it.
7:05 pm
compromise is not a dirty word, and fighting common ground, -- finding common ground, incremental change. that is how it happens. what are we doing about it? i heard a question -- i think that we in our report, i hope it comes across this way, we are looking to find the most effective way possible to ensure that there can be inspections on a frequent basis, a regular basis, to insure that children are in the best setting they can be in. building on that, we are working to get a nation-wide network of parents who will stand up and make these points. i agree with helen. we should be ashamed that only
7:06 pm
one out of every six children in this country receives assistance. all the studies show that low- income children have the most to gain from access to high-quality care. what i also know is that this is not a low-income family issue. this is an issue -- child care is an issue for all families. all families with working moms, that is 2/3 of moms of children under 5 in the work force, that is an issue for all of them. when i talk to my neighbors, everybody talks about hart -- how to find care. how to afford it. once you get it, then you get questions of quality. what is good enough? what can i live with? we are working to change that. it is great to talk to each other, but you have to talk to policy-makers, absolutely, at the state level. in every state capital. not just at rally day, but every
7:07 pm
day. also recheck to congress. we have about 13 -- reach out to congress. we have about 13,000 parents in our network. we have about 80 parent leaders leave and working with to bring to you see and -- d.c. and have some training. they think,laws, , they're the experts. we say, you parents, you are the experts. we need a confidence builder to accept that. you do not think so. you think, the congress and staff, they are the experts. they are, but they know it from a different lens. they know it mostly from hearing about it from you. parents need to come together and understand that they have power in coming together and in increasing visibility. without the visibility, we are right back at the beginning. all these policymakers and candidates running for state and federal office, even at the highest level, for president,
7:08 pm
they do not have to say a thing if they can get away with it. it is only if you can create the buzz to make them address the issues. the billions of dollars for the bankers -- the bankers did not just talk to each other and say, yes, i hope somebody does something. they came to d.c., , can to the state level, there were loud and clear -- do something. parents have to do the same thing. >> i want to -- we will get to a place where by the time we get to the last question we may be right at our 2:00 time. one more question to add to this mix here -- one question here from the lady to arrive. >> good afternoon. i am with title 1 report. thank you for having us. i wanted to ask of you -- how in your organizations are you going to try to get some questions about early child care and learning into this presidential
7:09 pm
debate? how are we going to get the candidates talking? as far as the reauthorization, had we get those infant and toddler and early learning in there? >> he is ready to go, i know. he will answer that question. >> i actually have an answer for you. >> rob is up. then you'll have the last word. >> i will go ahead and let helen have the last word. the reason the bankers got what they got was because they were organized. there were literally quite prepared to show up in the thousands. and they did, in washington you see, where it mattered. -- d.c., where it mattered. on weekends, parents have to show up in the numbers people
7:10 pm
can visibly see. 5000, 10,000, 25,000, at a state capital, on a weekend. that is what is visible. that marks a change in the civic state of the capital sector. it has changed from being a recipient and passive and accommodative to being assertive, aggressive, and insistence that the country do what they should do, which makes sense economically and civilly. the reason it has not been done, and i believe it is first a question of money, is very clear. second, the money question has not been expressed that as a civil question. a third, it is not quite recognized yet how vitally dependent the country is on a
7:11 pm
trained, educated, a team- oriented, likable, fund, used in human capital population, young adult population. -- use in human capital population, young adult population. as for the state level, i think a lot is happening. we work at the state level and attempt to put together a business coalition, a business leader groups that recognize the importance of educating kids from conception to properly taken care of them, conception to kindergarten. we find more and more business people who get the reality. their understanding what the situation is. they are increasingly ready to take action. additionally, in this area at least appointed to, educating early actually solves elementary school problems, we published fares -- report last march on social impact finance.
7:12 pm
reduce special education costs. what we know is that the quality 3-your pre-kindergarten cop -- that yields a reduction in special education costs alone, and to pay for all the services. at the state level, at this understanding can take place and people can understand it. it can even be done on a school district level. the power of technology and communication is enabling people to act at local levels in the way they can active federal levels. -- cannot act and federal levels. as an act of the county and state level, it becomes clear at the federal level what needs to be done. from my standpoint, the beginnings of this process are sufficiently still new that it would be a third reason why we
7:13 pm
should not be surprised by what is relative inaction at the federal level. at the state level, a lot is going on. what lisa and david are doing is informing this and energizing it, making it easier for those of us attempting to organize business leaders in the states and increase the use of social impact finance. i am very encouraged by what is happening at the local and state level. >> helen for the last word. >> let me first give the most simple answer to your question. something everyone can do when they leave this room. good to our web site we there's one bought the shares you how to tweet and twitter the host of the debates and addressed early childhood and child care. if you can do that, all your friends can do that, maybe if we
7:14 pm
get enough people to do it they will actually ask a question. there is also a map that says put child care on the map, to encourage everybody you know to get state and federal elected officials into child care centers and and they, too, can put a pin on that map. i agree we have to be more militant. we have used more of this techniques, both in the reauthorization and in the -- we have to be more demanding. i believe this is a campaign -- a congress that is not doing much of anything. that is definitely a challenge to get anything constructive said. we have to push more. but i guess -- i would disagree -- i think there is some interesting activity going on in the states, but there is a lot of shallow activity going on the stage, and serious situation is
7:15 pm
going on in state funding for -- chao care and early education. in some places where it may look good systemwide, it is very precarious on what we can maintain in terms of a strong early childhood system. but my final remark, since i was allowed to be the last word, is to the business leaders. i would urge all the business leaders who have increasingly stepped up to support early childhood to also step up to the tax committees and point out all the tax loopholes we can close and all the tax increases that are absolutely viable that will provide the revenues that we need to provide the early childhood system for our children -- that our children and families deserve. i think that is doable. >> please join me in saying thank you to all our speakers today. [applause] thank you.
7:16 pm
we have our marching orders now. thank you to the foundation and to c-span. thank you for joining us today. we return. have a good afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] exit later tonight, from nevada, the republican incumbent senator debates his democratic challenger. we will bring you that live here on c-span at 11:30 p.m. eastern. $110 billion in federal spending cuts are scheduled to take a back in january, even the spat
7:17 pm
-- split between military and domestic programs. on this morning's "washington journal" we discussed these cuts with the head of the aerospace trade association. cuts especially when it comes to the defense department. marion blakey joins us. could the start by telling us who you represent guest: i represent the aerospace and defense manufacturers. this is everything that flies with a commercial, military, space, 360 companies. people might recognize? guest: boeing, lockheed martin. a lot of smaller companies, too. host: you have been giving out this clock. when it comes to taking a look at sequestration.
7:18 pm
it shows about 96 days left. what is important to know about that number from the people you represent? guest: we are running straight for a fiscal cliff everyone talks about. the number of days is all that is left before the law goes into effect. that is what some people do not realize. this is a law on the box. it is not just a proposal. we are facing reality unless we change it. host: does that preclude that nothing can be done about it wants congress comes back from the election? guest: we are putting a lot of hope on the lame duck session. we are hoping they will get a dose of reality. people do not want to see the undermining of the national security or the job losses going on with this. the congressional budget office said this will push us back into a recession next year. i think after they have had conversations at home they will come back and we hope they will
7:19 pm
be much more realistic about dealing with the real problems, which are the debt, the deficit, the fundamentals of us spending too much, in time to reform has to be put in place as does tax reform. host: there was a story taking a look at the defense industry yesterday. guest: we are in a tight spot. there is a lot has been on the books since the 1980's that requires you give your employees notice, 60 days usually and 90 in the new york, if you're going to have massive layoffs. that is what is already taking place. we have massive defense cuts last summer when the budget control act went into place. $487 billion cut. a lot of that is now forcing companies to close facilities. to really pull back because there is no choice.
7:20 pm
host: a covers the situation, we do not even know what will happen yet and yet they are taking place. guest: it covers any situation where you have to do these massive layoffs. last summer congress already took a huge whack out of defense. now we are anticipating in january we will be in the same spot. companies have an obligation to their employees. they have a responsibility to their shareholders. if you know something is coming, you have to act on it. we will see more pink slips this fall. host: there is a gentleman at the center for strategic budget -- todd harrison. when it into sequestration, he says this. it will be three or four years before defense companies feel the whole impact of sequestration.
7:21 pm
guest: coming from someone in a think tank who does not have bottom-line responsibility in a major business, there is a difference of perspective. he is right that there are going to be increasing affects over time. the fact of the matter is, they cuts for next year are major cuts. where you have to begin a cut is in the areas that you can. that often goes to r&d, it goes to the modernization programs -- and that is what we are counting on for our technological advantage anywhere in the world. it is much harder to cut in the operation, the minutes, the ongoing costs. these are cuts across the board. where we think we will see the most up front will be in a lot of the defense industry that supplies technology. host: if sequestration takes
7:22 pm
place, what happens to programs already current with defense contractors? guest: we will see cuts come into the programs without a doubt. we do not have the details. industry really does not thrive on uncertainty. everybody's trying to make decisions in a fog of uncertainty and they do not know what is coming. you tend to take the most conservative position because you have to. right now we do not know which programs will be hit and how hard. it only makes sense that this is approximately a 10% cut on top of the already massive cuts. we begin to say, you are going to have to prepare for it. in many cases you cannot just close 10% of a facility. you cannot shut down 10% of a line. you have to make business decisions. sometimes it is no longer viable
7:23 pm
from a business perspective. host: marion blakey served a five-year term. if you want to ask her questions, the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us say tweet. is this a bipartisan issue as to go to capitol hill? guest: it is very bipartisan. one thing that is important to note is that leadership on both sides -- the house and senate, all agree that sequestration will be a disaster. it is something we need an alternative to. it does have to be a bipartisan solution. as we are thinking.
7:24 pm
we do see leadership stepping up on both sides of congress. host: how do you keep this happening as far as congressional action is concerned? guest: the problem is we are up against the law. congress has difficulty getting laws on the books. this one will have to be rolled back by a piece of legislation that they have to pass through enough of the 435 members willing to stand up and said, we made a mistake. this is bad public policy. we need to step away from it and do something that actually addresses our fiscal problems in this country. sequestration only takes a neck out of the dead and the deficit. does not do anything fundamental. -- out of the debt and deficit. host: our first call is from michigan on the democrats' line. go ahead. caller: i am curious about defense spending. it seems to never stop increasing. we have had the war in iraq for
7:25 pm
10 years. that has cost as well, around $1 trillion? the war in afghanistan has been dragging on for 11 years. that is costing us on the $500 billion. we spend a huge amount of the budget -- half of the discretionary defense -- discretionary spending is on defense. i think spending on the military has doubled in 10 years. now we have a $1 trillion deficit the last fiscal year. if the defense hawks of the military industrial complex want to increase defense spending -- is that not cry out for tax increases? if he was significant spending -- if you want more spending even though we did not have a
7:26 pm
major threat by the soviet union facing us, does that not require -- let me mention simpson bowles. i think simpson bowles calls for cuts in defense. guest: people thought a lot of figures. on a few of them are right. defense spending is only 20% of the discretionary budget. another fundamental is the defense of the country is the most fundamental responsibility in our constitution. we do have to see that is maintained. the defense of the country is -- we do have to see that that is being maintained at an adequate level. no one suggest we are in less dangerous times. the reverse is true. cyberwarfare. thing about north korea. -- think about north korea. we have the kind of unlevel
7:27 pm
playing field that has worked so well all this time. periodot going into a that is fatal. how do you balance your budget is a bigger question. that is what we elected our members of congress to do, to make those tough decisions about entitlement spending. we're spending in a way that cannot sustain social security, medicaid, and medicare. something has to be done to reform those programs. you have to have a good balance. that's something the legislators need to address. caller: yes, hi. my party constantly says that
7:28 pm
government does not create jobs. that sounds like government does create jobs. one way these people could keep these jobs if we could stop using mercenaries all the time in our wars. thank you. about well, i'm not sure the use of the term "mercenary." we think the most fundamental issue is that these kinds of flashing cuts undermine national security. secretary panetta said they will be catastrophic. the term "mercenaries" goes to the issue of people that are not
7:29 pm
part of our military that also serve. there are contractors in afghanistan and other places who are supporting our troops. i do not think anybody thinks they are doing but providing the services that are important and needed. the all-volunteer army is then expensive asset and is supplemented by people who can, and support the troops. they do it with a variety of skills. sometimes it doesn't make sense to train the uniformed military. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to make three points. the constitution states that congress may tax to provide for
7:30 pm
the common defense and general welfare of the united states and to pay the debts. it doesn't mention a global military at all. you cannot have a small government and a global military. the military is probably the most expensive part of our government. it has the soldiers and also it is funding trillions upon hundreds of trillions of dollars to defense contractors. when you add it together, you have the largest aspect of their government, the military. guest: i do not know there was a question in there. going back to the constitution,
7:31 pm
if you read the constitution up front, it says our government is to provide for the common defense. it is a responsibility and the united states is the world's only superpower. we have a superpower -- we have a responsibility to maintain global peace and global security. there has not been a u.s. service member loss from an era tax since the 1950's. -- air attack since the 1950's .that's because we have erred dominance -- air dominance the matter where we go. global stability is in the interests of the united states. it does take resources to
7:32 pm
maintain that. host: a direct question from twitter. guest: well, i think it is important to listen to the experts who know. technology advances and we need to maintain what is a modern, up-to-date military that can protect us in the best ways possible. i did not think many people think it was a mistake to have a gps. these are innovations that are part of the military. it is also cybersecurity. so things are intangible -- some things are intangible.
7:33 pm
there are great things to it. the important role that the united states place makes it an investment worth making. host: is there a concern about efficiency? guest: i think everyone has to be concerned about efficiency. companies are streamlining. they also make recommendations about ways to get the most from the taxpayers' money. the pentagon is putting in place and initiative they call better buying power. they look at the way they set requirements. once you make decisions about it, working together with industries, making sure it is
7:34 pm
done smartly and does not change over time so that things get more and more expensive. there is a great deal to this. efficiency can be had on this side of industry. we are trying to get there. host: can more efficiency lead to more layoffs? guest: it could. there is no desire to lose the human capital. some of the positions we have, folks in nuclear submarines, eight years in training. we like to bring in new people that can learn the skills.
7:35 pm
but it takes years and years. we are not just talking about big contractors like boeing. 70% of the defense dollar goes to small business. we're talking about the kind of job loss that is massive to small business. one thing that matters -- a lot of these are companies that only do one or two things. they have invested in things that help support a particular product. it is hard to pull back. if that contract goes, they have nothing. they are the source of a lot of innovation these days. the small business
7:36 pm
administration look to see where the patents were going. many were going to small businesses. that is a part of the economy that will be knocked if sequestration goes into effect. host: our guest is marion blakey, president and ceo of aerospace industries association. to have vague website -- you have a website, secondtonone. guest: that is people making sure that we're able to defend and be a strong partner with our allies in maintaining security. we want us to be second to none in every regard. that website provides
7:37 pm
information about the government that will be affected like the faa. they will not be able to modernize if these cuts go in. nasa, other parts of the government. we make it easy for people to contact our leaders. contact conagra's with just a click of the mouse -- contact congress with just a click of the mouse. some of the studies have been done by a professor from george mason university. host: at the request of your organization? guest: absolutely. we go to people with independent standing and authority.
7:38 pm
2.14 million jobs lost to sequestration. these figures have been backed up. if this goes into effect, we're heading off the fiscal cliff into recession next year. they talk about job loss. we can see this across-the- board. this is something both campaigns have begun discussing. people understand what this means. host: and a call from maryland -- our next call from maryland. caller: i am stunned listening to your guest. i'm wary about losing my call -- i am worried about losing my call.
7:39 pm
how can we keep spending money on the pentagon? how can we possibly do that? the military budget is almost 50% of our discretionary budget. i would like for you to tell me, how can we keep spending this much money on the pentagon? thank you. guest: when you say the pentagon, and makes it sound like you're spending on a five- sided building. defense covers a wide variety of applications. bases, training, operations. a lot of equipment has worn out. the protections we need.
7:40 pm
that costs money. it is 20% of the domestic budget. yes, this is something that does make a great deal -- costs a great deal. it makes a great deal of difference in terms of our national security. it has a major effect on jobs in this country. it is not possible to talk about this kind of money without realizing it underpins a great many communities in this country. the folks who do the machining.
7:41 pm
that has a ripple effect throughout our committees if you cut it off and that has an economic blow to this country. this is not something we should take for granted. host: juliana on a republican line. caller: i believe obama made the defense cut because he wants the united states to be the third world country and not to be the strongest country in the world, the way america should be. and america during world war ii protected italy -- i'm getting nervous now. obama is a marxist. he does not believe in the way of the united states. the american people better wake-
7:42 pm
up. we will lose our rights little by little. i want money to be spent on defense. host: do we outspend most of the world on defense spending? guest: we spend most of the rest of the world. try to compare in the state's spending and china is impossible. labor rates are different. you cannot live it up and say this, this, and this -- cannot line it up. this is the way history has gone. there is a benefit to our citizens to maintaining an
7:43 pm
appropriate balance in peace in this world. the caller was talking about the way things were back in world war ii. was a time when the united states went into war without the proper equipment. we had people training with broomsticks because they did not have rifles. cars have a sign that said "tank" to give them the idea of what it would be like when they hit the beaches in europe. we never want to be in that position again. "we can just pull back." we have worn out equipment out. that not replacing equipment. we want our volunteer army to have the best technology and
7:44 pm
protection possible. we have to continue to innovate. it will protect us. that is where a great many things that we take for granted is the backbone of our economy. the internet and gps are two great examples that came from defense spending. host: this is myron on our independent line. caller: hello? how is this a fact the budget of defense -- the way to win the war in afghanistan?
7:45 pm
how we can help save gold in your industry. what do you think -- stop mining -- ukrainian corruption, $200 million. guest: well, going back to 9/11, we were not prepared for that attack. defense spending increased after 9/11. we began to engage in iraq and afghanistan and does work expense of conflicts.
7:46 pm
defense spending went up at that point. that's the way the numbers are. those have to be looked at on a case by case basis. that those two issues of the foreign policy of the united states, as well as were we believe the military needs to be shored up. host: the defense budget -- does that sound right? guest: that sounds about right. caller: hello? host: go ahead.
7:47 pm
guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i was disturbed by this conversation. miss blakey a corporate head and she has to do her job. things like this -- narrow minded republicans. i think americans want something different. we want peace. i know that is her job. host: your question, sir? caller: what are they fighting for? they want to give the american people less things. it is not fair. we to build back america and
7:48 pm
create jobs here. the idea of having a psychological advantage is -- host: we will leave it there. guest: everything i've been talking about this morning goes to the issue of preserving peace and stability. in the world we live and, peace must be maintained through strength. that is something most people accept. there are a number of factors in our economy. defense and military spending has a major effect on the jobs at home. the cuts are putting a risk 2.14 million jobs.
7:49 pm
that is a lot of jobs. these are people, they are the ones that will be hit very hard if that kind of money is wiped out of the u.s. economy. host: 10% decrease in research and development. which category affect your industry the most? guest: probably research and development and procurement. we're also concerned about maintenance. we have care about the entire defense establishment. we are not making distinctions.
7:50 pm
we're talking a great deal about defense this morning. there are other problems with sequestration's and these cuts. 50% of these cuts are coming in areas like medical research and being able to fly it saved systems. nasa. food inspectors. we will be talking about cutting back on park rangers. the medical establishment is extremely worried. "sequestration will do terrible things to our programs that are supporting the poor and those who need care. the money is not going to be there." we feel like it is bad policy
7:51 pm
across the government. we need a much more strategic set of choices that congress makes. the cuts need to be well chosen on things that are lower priority. they are going to have to get under control our spending on the major entitlement programs as well as tax reform revenues. those are complex things. that is what they need to get down to work on. host: we have 5 more minutes with our guest. caller: good morning. please explain what sequestration is. the gentleman that just called
7:52 pm
thought we should eliminate our defense. i wish he would understand that peace through strength means peace through strength. we need the ability to help other nations that need our help. guest: a term like "sequestration" -- a year ago, virtually no one knew it. someone said, "it sounds like a disease." to pull out of something a portion of ed and to sequester a part of the budget and apply it again to the deficit. that is what sequestration is intended to do.
7:53 pm
it goes to offset the debt. look at the massive size of the debt. it is more of a gesture. i think that is what people do not understand. this is nothing more than a gesture and not the kind of reform we need. host: sue is from texas. caller: hi. i want to address marion. thank you, c-span. i'm glad we can say our say. i've learned so much about so many different industries. a lot of your comments we both
7:54 pm
know are exaggerated and some are scaring a lot of people. as long as we are informed, then i think we will be better for it. first of all, cuts are tough. we need to cut more than what has been proposed for the defense industry. there are a lot of people that have gone knowledge. the defense industry has ripped off the government allot by inflated prices. there are millions of lost that are informed and we're happy with what president obama is doing. thank you. guest: certainly becoming informed it is important.
7:55 pm
it is about we need our elected leaders across the board to do and address. becoming informed does not mean picking up on old myths, old things that have been said. the defense industry wastes a lot of money. you need to be specific and do your homework. once youtube that, you will -- once you do that, you'll find our military is the pride of this country and is held up worldwide as the defense sword and shield for democracy and for a way of life that we all enjoy. we owe them a debt of gratitude. host: did you address the white house about the cuts?
7:56 pm
guest: we went over and met -- i have sent letters to the president expressing our concerns that this is something where everybody needs to come together and construct a bipartisan compromise. host: what was the response? guest: everybody says we have to avoid this. the question is where you put the weight. how much goes into entitlement reform. changes to the tax code. we're not suggesting they should not be cut on the table. it should not be done and mindless across-the-board --
7:57 pm
host: what is acceptable? guest: you are elected to make choices and to dig into these programs. get what you believe -- look at what you believe and vote for those things and not simply say, "this is too hard and we'll take a pass." host: what is susceptible to your industry? -- what would be accepted cuts? guest: we have accepted $487 billion and we expected that with good grace. and it hurt. we had last this week, layoffs in the thousands that go to the cuts that were put in place last summer. this is not without consequence.
7:58 pm
we are not saying we should not accept our fair share of the burden. we are willing to be a part of the dialogue. we are not stepping away from this. across the board without any concern of what gets cut -- how do you cut a tenth of a battleship? we will continue to make sure that people who are voting is informed. we did a poll -- we asked them to see what voters in the dollar ground swing states fought about sequestration. 80% of those voters felt that sequestration should be set
7:59 pm
aside by this congress before the election. that they needed to come up with an alternative. that is across the board, republican, democrat, old, young. there is a sentiment on the people saying "this is bad policy and should not be allowed to happen." that is what we're advocating. host: marion blakey, president and ceo of the aerospace industries association. thank you. guest: thank you. >> on tomorrow's "washington >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," maria bar


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on